But

New Teftament from the Old Teftament, there is not a fingle berefy that will not find fomething to fay for itself, perhaps more than we may be able very easily to answer. let us carry what we hear to the Old Teftament; if it exactly* tallies with that, we may be fure it is a right interpretation of the New Teftament; if otherwise, it must be false, because the mind and will of GoD can never vary, difagree with, or contradict itself. I do not say these things with regard to any particular doctrine of the New Teftament, but with refpect to the whole.-The doctrine of a Trinity in unity-the incarnation-birth-life -teaching-miracles-fufferings-death-burial-refurrection-afcenfion-glorification, and interceffion of Jefus Chrift, together with the afpect these things bear towards the salvation of mankind, if only related in a book, no fingle article of which was ever heard or thought of for four thousand years together, would challenge little more of my affent or belief, than the Koran of Mahomet, the Zend, or Zend-avefta of Confucius, or the Shafter of the Bramins. But when I But when I compare these things with what is contained in the Old Teftament, to which the New Teftament fo often refers for their truth, I then can no

"The gofpel is the best comment upon the law, and "the law is the best expofitor of the gofpel: they are "like a pair of indentures, they anfwer in every part: "their harmony is wonderful, and is of itfelf a convic"tion. No human contrivance could have reached it." Leflie's Works, vol. i. p. 75.

more

more fuppofe them to be falfe, than I can fuppofe it poffible for men to fee into futurity, exactly delineate what is to happen ages before it comes to pafs, and fo exactly, as that the event fhall be a literal fulfilment of all that is foretold, unless He who is perfect in knowledge hath made a revelation or discovery of things which no mortal wisdom or forefight could have ever otherwise been acquainted with. Therefore, when we compare the New Teftament with the Old, we may be affured that it is as impoffible to be falfe, as that a dozen dice fhould be thrown the fame number for a* million times running; no hazard or cafualty could bring fuch a thing within the most acute calculation of chance; therefore I conclude, that nothing fhort of infinite wisdom and divine contrivance could ever first declare, and then fulfil, the wondrous things which are written in Mofes and the prophets. When therefore I hear of a doctrine as taught in the New Teftament, I am certain, if it be true, it must accord with the scriptures of the Old Testament. Thither I carry it; if I find it does not exactly tally with what I find there, I am certain it is falfe, and must arise from fome mifconception, and, of course, fome mifinterpretation of the paffage where it is fuppofed to be found. I am told that fin is a tranfgreffion of the law; when I hear it afferted that polygamy is finful, I confult the law; if it be forbidden there, I agree to the finfulness of it;

*For which reafon, AN INFIDEL may be ftyled, the moft CREDULOUS OF MORTALS.

if

if not forbidden there, but allowed, I find. myself reduced to this dilemma-either the afferter of fuch a propofition, who fays he takes it from the New Teftament, is mistaken, which is probable, or the New Teftament muft contradict the law, which is impoffible.

With respect to what is frequently urged against polygamy among Chriftians, that "tho' "it was allowed by the law of Mofes, yet it " is forbidden by the law of Chrift"-by which CHRIST is made a repealer of the old, and a giver of a new law-it fo affects His character as the Meffiah, as to render Him, if it be true, not the perfon which Mofes and the prophets represent Him, or what He represented Himfelf to be. The difcuffion, therefore, of this horrid pofition requires, and fhall have, a chapter by itself.

At prefent, I will advert to an argument taken from the New Teftament, to prove the unlawfulness of polygamy among Chriftians, though allowed to the Jews under the Old Teftament. St. Paul, * Eph. v. 31, 32. and in fome

"Lex Hebræa omnem fpurcitiem inhibet, fed plures uni "concedit uxores." GROTIUS.- "The Jewish law re"ftrains all filthiness, but allows a plurality of wives to

*That marriage may be looked upon in a typical view, with respect to the union of CHRIST with the church, appears very clearly from this fcripture, and the others referred to-but in this view of the matter, polygamy and monogamy were equally typical-the former, of the church, as confifting of Jews and Gentiles, and of the many and various individual believers among them-the latter, of the whole company of believers, collectively confidered,

as

fome other paffages, reprefents marriage as à figure or reprefentation of Chrift and His church, which is but one whereas, having more wives than one at a time, deftroys the analogy which the marriage-state bears to CHRIST and His church. In anfwer to which, I would afk, If CHRIST and His church were not as much one under the Old Teftament as under the New Teftament? If. liv. 5. Thy Maker is thine husband, the LORD of Hofts is his name; the GOD of the whole earth fhall He be called. See alfo Jer. iii. 14, 20. The church, taken collectively, is but one; but diftributively, it confifts of many. Rom. xii. 5. We being many, are one body in CHRIST and Cor. xii. 12. For as the body is ONE, and bath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, fo alfo is CHRIST. So that the argument against polygamy, taken from the union and unity of CHRIST and His church, rather leans the other way; unless, contrary to fcripture and fact, it could be proved that the church confifted but of one member; whereas it confifts of many, and yet is but one body-one houshold-Eph. ii. 19. One family, even though the faints in heaven be also taken into the account. Eph. iii. 15. The bride or spouse of CHRIST is but onei. e. one church; yet every member of that church is as diftinctly the spouse of CHRIST, as really married to Him that rose from the

as making but one body, of which CHRIST is the head. Comp. Rom. xii. 5. 1 Cor. xii. 2. with Eph. i. 23. -ii. 21, 22.

VOL. I.

R.

dead

dead (Rom. vii. 4.) as the whole is, collectively confidered. Surely these scriptural illuftrations of the nature of the marriagebond, afford a complete anfwer to that queftion, If a man hath two wives, how can "he be one flesh with both-or each one flesh "with him?" See Eph. v. 30.

We also read not only of the church of CHRIST in the fingular number, but of the churches of CHRIST in the plural, about forty times in the New Teftament; which, by the way, is at least as conclufive an argument for polygamy, as the other is against it.

From the making CHRIST and His church an emblem of marriage, or marriage an emblem of CHRIST and His church, fome have Mooked upon it as a facrament. There is certainly an outward fign of fomething fpiritual; but as there wants that which is effentially neceffary to make it a facrament, which is GOD's own appointment of it as fuch, the more fcriptural profeffors of Christianity reject it. For the fame reafon I would reject thofe arguments againft polygamy, which are drawn from the union of Chrift and His church, becaufe God has no where established their authority, (that I can find) either in the Old Teftament or the New. Thefe arguments would have been juft as conclufive under the former as under the latter: The church is called the married wife. If liv. i. Her REDEEMER, the LORD of hosts, is called her Husband, ver. 5; but never did Ifaiah, nor any other of the prophets, ufe this as an argu

ment